CCW on campus...a list of places where it can happen

[Flash]

True enough, I am not either of those...but, I am a law abiding guy, who resides in a state which allows open carry. I rarely carry openly because of the target factor you mentioned.

And, um, sorry about your tiny tool.

Well Doc, there are exceptions to every rule.......I was thinking more of the the guys who would do so on campus.

P.S. Note to self.......never piss off the guy who does your flight physical......

 

[feddoc]

That's right, mister and I have a HUGE knuckle.

 

[A4sForever]

The 2nd Amendment is what it is, just like the "other 9" .... and it's REALLY clear, in spite of the nattering class of non-believing or ignorant citizens who would marginalize it. Read the Founding Fathers on the subject of guns and/or "gun control" and the "right to bear" if you have any lingering doubts as to the value and rationale of firearms in our society ....

Those who would put "qualifications" .... or .... "common sense interpretations" ... or "reasonable restrictions" .... or otherwise restrict the ability of law-abiding Americans to keep, possess, or "bear" arms according to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is a fraud and a hypocrite. Or worse ...

We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country. Now THAT'S UNreasonable ...

Believe it.

 

[villanelle]

Okay, but to be fair, did the founding fathers anticipate automatic weapons and all the advances in firearms technology that have happened in the last couple of decades?

As someone else pointed out, other amendments (including the 1st) have certain restrictions on them as well. You can't scream "Fire" in a crowded theater, but the fundamental intent of the amendment remains intact. Does having to wait 3 days to have your gun, or forbidding mentally ill people from owning a gun (which is one of those 20,000 gun laws you seem to find so appalling) really impede upon your right to protect yourself? Of course some of the restrictions are debatable, but citing the fact that there are a large number of laws, while not sorting through what those laws are and acknowledging that some of them are pretty damn reasonable seems a bit...disingenuous. Or are you really opposed to any and every law pertaining to gun ownership, possession, and use.

 

[HokiePilot]

The oft cited "screaming fire in a crowded theater" is illegal because that single act causes a great chance of injury to others. The act of keeping and bearing arms has no direct immediate harm on anyone else. The act of shooting someone is illegal.

 

[nittany03]

Of course some of the restrictions are debatable, but citing the fact that there are a large number of laws, while not sorting through what those laws are and acknowledging that some of them are pretty damn reasonable seems a bit...disingenuous. Or are you really opposed to any and every law pertaining to gun ownership, possession, and use.

Anyone who objects to EVERY gun law is
being foolish. You're right. There is no reason for a wife beater or sociopath to have a gun. Or someone with dementia.

But the problem is, people try to pass "reasonable" gun laws because they want to control what others do. And have succeeded far too often. Tell me how banning a 15-round magazine as opposed to a 10-round magazine is going to reduce violence when the bullets still come out one at a time. That's the one place where the far left and far right bend around behind the back of common sense and meet in some kind of perverse marriage of busybodiness . . . they both know what's best for me better than I do myself. Only the right wants to control my liquor cabinet and bedroom, while the left wants to control my gun safe and my doctor's appointments!

 

[villanelle]

The oft cited "screaming fire in a crowded theater" is illegal because that single act causes a great chance of injury to others. The act of keeping and bearing arms has no direct immediate harm on anyone else. The act of shooting someone is illegal.

Right, but the point remains that there are laws and limitations put on things covered by the amendments.

 

[A4sForever]

Or are you really opposed to any and every law pertaining to gun ownership, possession, and use...

Of course not -- don't be ridiculous. Criminals, dullards, women (just kidding ) and the mentally deficient should NOT have access to firearms ...

Okay, but to be fair, did the founding fathers anticipate automatic weapons and all the advances in firearms technology....

No ... again, of course not. And again -- you are just being ridiculous. But they DID consider the 2nd Amendment in the light of the best, most advanced firearms of the day .... didn't they??? As with everything; it's all relative. And they were amazingly prescient in their views on most things -- that's why they are still with us today ... those angry, ol' white men.

Soooo-o-o-o-o-o ... riddle me this: Why would one suppose that the Founding Fathers were "out of touch" on THIS amendment -- "automatic weapons", blah, blah, blah ..... but not the rest?? You are being specious in your argument. Do you even KNOW how many "automatic" weapons have been used in the commission of a crime according to the FBI stats -- Hollywood notwithstanding -- since the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934??? You DO KNOW what that was all about, yea-as???

Suggestion: you are starting to come across as a well-intentioned fool where it pertains to firearms, legal ownership, and the 2nd Amendment. I suggest you do some "stupid study" prior to commenting further -- you know; to save yourself from further embarrassment.

 

[GroundPounder]

With respect to the 1st and 2nd amendments, it is funny how the very same people have such a different approach to their interpretation.

According to them almost any action is " speech " and should not be curtailed in any way. Want a $100,000 govt. grant to paint Jesus as a Hell's Angel running a meth lab, sure no problem, its protected speech. The wise men that framed the constitution would be proud of us, they wanted everyone to be able to say anything at anytime, right?

Now it comes to the 2nd amendment, even though it plainly says that we have the right to " keep and bear arms " we all know that they didn't mean the regular people, just the militia, so it will be fine if we pass a few laws that " clear up " what they really meant to say.

If the left in the country treated the 2nd amendment as they do the 1st, we would all be given the weapon of our choice by the state.

 

[mb1k]

Really?! I'm sorry, but how do you know they were 'gang-bangers' much less carrying? Maybe it was a guy who got a thrill out of intimidating people like you. I just don't see how having a gun would have helped........

Gee Flash, having had most of my cousins in gangs (and some jail time), two close friends in high school living the gang life, myself living and growing up in gang-infested central California ...I think I can ID hardcore bangers and wannabes by now.

When they start kicking your face in, as they are apt to do from my experience. It's a pack mentality, many against few. If they have knives, a gun trumps that. If they have guns, I'll let you be the one w/o a gun instead of me. You honestly tell me you'd rather have nothing when confronted with an unavoidable situation such as that? You've done all you could to walk away, avoid confrontation, but yet it finds you anyway?

Would you execute a sortie into a MEZ w/o SEAD? You're telling me essentially that I should be a sheep in the face of these thugs and delinquents? That's what it sounds like to me.

I barely escaped the peer pressure in my youth to "belong" to a gang myself. I got lucky. One cousin cleaned himself up (albeit a bit later in life) and is doing fine now as well, but he has a permanent record.

I'm going to weigh in with A4s, your rapid and reactive gun control infused remark lacked the tone and possibility that I actually may know what I'm talking about. I made no such preconceived judgments about you...

 

[Herc_Dude]

Now it comes to the 2nd amendment, even though it plainly says that we have the right to " keep and bear arms " we all know that they didn't mean the regular people, just the militia, so it will be fine if we pass a few laws that " clear up " what they really meant to say.

My sarcasm has crashed and burned ...

 

[Flash]

Gee Flash, having had most of my cousins in gangs (and some jail time), two close friends in high school living the gang life, myself living and growing up in gang-infested central California ...I think I can ID hardcore bangers and wannabes by now.

I barely escaped the peer pressure in my youth to "belong" to a gang myself. I got lucky. One cousin cleaned himself up (albeit a bit later in life) and is doing fine now as well, but he has a permanent record.

Well, good for you for not falling into that.......but shouldn't you be using your super-sleuth detective skills as a cop?

When they start kicking your face in, as they are apt to do from my experience. It's a pack mentality, many against few. If they have knives, a gun trumps that. If they have guns, I'll let you be the one w/o a gun instead of me. You honestly tell me you'd rather have nothing when confronted with an unavoidable situation such as that? You've done all you could to walk away, avoid confrontation, but yet it finds you anyway?

You only have one side of the story. Maybe he was a furniture delivery guy enjoying a day out with his fellow wannabes and decided to scare a few people. Like I said, how the heck did you know they were probably armed, or even gang types?

Would you execute a sortie into a MEZ w/o SEAD? You're telling me essentially that I should be a sheep in the face of these thugs and delinquents? That's what it sounds like to me.

I was the SEAD.....and I would just avoid it in a flying bus like an EP-3 or RJ......

I'm going to weigh in with A4s, your rapid and reactive gun control infused remark lacked the tone and possibility that I actually may know what I'm talking about. I made no such preconceived judgments about you...

My word, what am I to do now?! I guess I will have to throw up in my hands in surrender..........Or maybe not.

 

[Flash]

Exactly - just like the ENTIRE Bill of Rights is about INDIVIDUAL rights, yet they just wanted to throw in one amendment that only applies to states/militias.

Who said anything about throwing it out?

 

[mb1k]

I was the SEAD.....and I would just avoid it in a flying bus like an EP-3 or RJ......

I know you're SEAD, that's why I put the reference in there. I would NEVER go anywhere near most things being HVAA, I get intercepted enough when I'm just doing SRO.

I was speaking from my experience as senior offensive duty officer (SODO) on the AOC Ops floor having worked myself up from DT Chief and ad hoc'ing DT/TST packages...

NO ONE is going to convince you to change your viewpoint on this, just as NO ONE is going to get me change mine.

You have many valid points and concerns about the CCW public. But your soap box attitude and short-sighted-antagonistic posts prevent civil discussion and serve to only trigger A4s' and the likes rebuttals. I too am concerned about those Rambo-idiot-glory-seeking types as well. You just assumed that I was one of those. Most of us with CCW aren't "seeking a fire fight", it's the last thing I want.

I can't think of a spot on analogy, but the closest thing is that we should take all the ejection seats out of our aircraft because it's just encouraging x-sport thrill seeker types to pull the handle and going for a ride or encouraging us to throw jets away because the pilot's can simply give up and punch.

My gun is the very last resort. I will walk away, let myself get punched (if I believe that that's all that going to happen), get verbally abused, trash thrown on, etc. Rather live with all that than having to shot someone. But I only got one me, and one family. I'll do what I need to.

 

[A4sForever]

..... your soap box attitude and short-sighted-antagonistic posts prevent civil discussion and serve to only trigger A4s' and the likes rebuttals......

And WTF does that refer to, Junior???